Frameworks for Thinking about Development in Thailand
Ajaan Mark Ritchie, Kalamazoo College and Chiangmai University

December 2002
www.markr@pobox.com

Ajaan Mark Ritchie, Director of the International Sustainable Development Studies Institute www.isdsi.org, operated by Kalamazoo College in Michigan and based in the Department of Economics at Chiangmai University in Thailand, addressed our class on December 31, 2002. The isdsi program operates increasingly on a model of experiential education that is similar to that used by the NOLS group in the United States. www.nols.edu I first met Ajaan Ritchie last year when I was in Thailand, undertaking my sabbatical research. I found his work with sustainable agriculture and experiential education to be very similar to the interests of many of our students at Warren Wilson. Thus, I asked Ajaan Mark if he would help our class put Thailand's development, particularly with regard to environmental concerns, within some sort of framework for analysis.

Ajaan Mark began his lecture with a discussion of "ecological footprint." As Thailand becomes increasingly industrialized, its own footprint grows and emulates, in many areas of the country, the ways that our own American footprint is exceeding our needs and our ability to sustain our production. He gave examples of ways that Thailand is developing in ways that exceed its sustainable capacity: the Patmoon Dam and the Thai/Malaysian pipeline.

To understand the concept of "ecological footprint" he directed us to the website www.redefiningprogress.org As population increases the ecological degradation continues and the number of earths that we use, per person, grows. Through the use of synthetic fertilizers and multiple cropping, for example, we exceed the regenerative capacity of the earth. There are some places in Thailand, such as we will experience most likely during our forthcoming experience with FEDRA, that do not exceed their regenerative capacity and may even live well beneath it. Click here to see notes from our village stay.

Ajaan Mark provided us with another framework through which to view questions of sustainability on a more macro level. He introduced us to the concept of the GPI as opposed to the GDP. The GPI looks at the health of the whole biosphere and takes into consideration costs and benefits that are overlooked when using the GDP measure alone. He pointed us again to some charts that show that around 1980, a phenomena called "tipping" occurred when the ability of the earth to regenerate itself seemed to be increasingly in jeopardy. The GPI differs from GDP because, unlike GDP, not everything that happens within the economy is considered a plus. In GDP terms, for instance, a superfund site is considered a "plus" because of what it takes to clean it up. Clear cutting is a plus and reforestation of that same plot of land is a plus. Also, in GDP there is much that is not calculated. For instance, unpaid labor, particularly that of women, is not included. The value of certain items is calculated solely on the basis of what they bring in the market. For instance, a cedar tree has a market value of $1500-$2500 when it is cut down. But if we were to value it in terms of the oxygen it produces, could somehow sequester its oxygen output, the red cedar might be worth upwards of $2 million in oxygen. Therefore, the value of our resources is skewed because of the cost/benefit analytical model that is employed.

GPI was created by a former economist for the World Bank who is now a university professor, Dr. Herman Daly, author of Beyond Growth and Valuing the Earth. He maintains that the economy needs to be moved toward a steady state and that we need to revisit the idea that "growth equals development." It is difficult to put these two terms together because growth is a quantitative measure and development is qualitative. According to conventional economics, there is infinite substitutionality. But Daly maintains that there are biophysical limits to growth. Ajaan Mark pointed us to another chart which indicates the way we are "overshooting" our current regenerative capacity in the biosphere because our population has exceeded our carrying capacity. Nations need to take this into account, as is Taiwan, for instance, who just this year banned the use of plastic utensils throughout the nation.

He encouraged us to explore countries and companies whose policies are taking into consideration what appears to be more qualitative factors. He gave as an example: Patagonia Corporation (they take interns!) and the Federal Express family leave policy which actually helps to make them money. Ajaan Mark maintained that you cannot persuade people to change on the basis of moral authority alone. You have to convince them that their changes will be economically productive. He referred us to another resource: Paul Hawkin's Natural Capitalism and Cradle to Cradle.

Ajaan Mark concluded his lecture by encouraging us to ask as many questions as possible and to keep our eyes open while we are in the country. As we drive around and see new, multi-lane roads in very remote areas, wonder why that road was built. Could corruption be involved, kickbacks for instance? Pay attention to the issues that relate to Thai/Burmese relations, to the need of Hill Tribe peoples to have access to Thai citizenship and identity cards, the current administration's attempts to discredit NGO's by saying that they are under the control of foreigners who are out to destroy Thailand, etc. He encouraged students who continue to be interested in these issues to explore the possibilities of post graduate fellowships like the Junior Fulbright (see www.iie.org for information)